{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\cocoartf1504\cocoasubrtf830
{\fonttbl\f0\fswiss\fcharset0 ArialMT;}
{\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue0;}
{\*\expandedcolortbl;;\csgenericrgb\c0\c0\c0;}
\margl1440\margr1440\vieww10000\viewh13460\viewkind0
\deftab720
\pard\pardeftab720\ri-8\pardirnatural\qc\partightenfactor0
\f0\b\fs24 \cf2 Right-Wing Media Could Not Be More Wrong about 1.5\'b0C Carbon Budget Paper\
\b0 by Dana Nuccitelli\
\pard\pardeftab720\fi354\ri-8\pardirnatural\partightenfactor0
\cf2 Sep. 27, 2017 \'96 Last week,
\i \cf2 Nature Geoscience
\i0 \cf2 published\'a0a study suggesting that we have a bigger remaining carbon budget than previously thought to keep global warming below the 1.5\'b0C aggressive Paris climate target. Many scientists quickly commented that the paper\'92s conclusion was based on some questionable assumptions, and this single study shouldn\'92t be blindly accepted as gospel truth.\
Conservative media outlets did even worse than that. They took one part of the paper\'92s analysis out of context and grossly distorted its conclusions to advance their anti-climate agenda.\
\pard\pardeftab720\ri-8\pardirnatural\qc\partightenfactor0
\i \cf2 1.5\'b0C Might Indeed Be a Geophysical Impossibility\
\pard\pardeftab720\fi354\ri-8\pardirnatural\partightenfactor0
\i0 \cf2 The study used the UK Met Office and Hadley Center\'92s HadCRUT4 global temperature data set to conclude that, so far, we\'92ve warmed 0.93\'b0C from the mid-1800s to 2015, compared to the Paris target of 1.5\'b0C above pre-industrial temperatures. Several climate scientists immediately noted a problem here \'96 HadCRUT4 excludes the Arctic region, which is the fastest-warming part of the planet. Hence it\'92s one of the least globally-representative temperature datasets. According to more globally-complete data sets like Berkeley Earth, the warming we\'92ve seen is closer to 1.1\'b0C.\
Defining \'93pre-industrial temperatures\'94 is another issue. Humans caused some global warming prior to the mid-1800s;\'a0as one recent study showed, as much as 0.2\'b0C.\
A 3rd problem\'a0discussed by climate scientists Stefan Rahmstorf at RealClimate involves the way the study authors defined the budget itself. They looked at how much carbon will be emitted at the time we reach 1.5\'b0C warming. But because of what\'92s known as the \'91thermal inertia\'92 of the oceans, and because sunlight-reflecting pollutants will fall out of the atmosphere as we shift away from dirty coal power, the planet will keep warming after that time.\
If we take all these factors together, depending on how we decide to define \'93pre-industrial\'94 in the Paris target, we may in fact already be committed to 1.5\'b0C warming, and the headline conclusion that \'93the 1.5[\'b0]C warming limit is not yet a geophysical impossibility\'94 may be incorrect.\
But ultimately that\'92s a relatively unimportant point. Even if limiting global warming to 1.5\'b0C is still technically feasible, it will take immense global action to achieve it. If it\'92s infeasible, we still need immense global action to try and stay below 2\'b0C, or 2.5\'b0C, or to slow global warming as much as possible to avoid catastrophic consequences.\'a0\
From a real-world policy perspective, we need all hands on deck, whether the conclusions of this paper are right or wrong.\
\pard\pardeftab720\ri-8\pardirnatural\qc\partightenfactor0
\i \cf2 Biased Right-Wing Media Turns on the Spin Cycle\
\pard\pardeftab720\fi354\ri-8\pardirnatural\partightenfactor0
\i0 \cf2 Of course, many conservatives who\'a0want to maintain the status quo\'a0object to that reality. As we saw with\'a0the recent Ipso ruling, many right-wing media outlets will jump at any opportunity to misrepresent climate research, in order to advance the climate denial agenda.\'a0\
Unfortunately,\'a0Ben Webster of the
\i \cf2 London Times
\i0 \cf2 appears to have misunderstood co-author Myles Allen\'92s explanation of their study, and quoted him as saying: \'93
\i \cf2 We haven\'92t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven\'92t seen that in the observations.\'94\
\i0 \cf2 Many climate scientists immediately pointed out this assertion is false.\'a0The UK Met Office noted, \'93The observations lie comfortably within the modeled range.\'94\
The
\i \cf2 Daily Mail
\i0 \cf2 (reliable only for\'a0its unreliable climate reporting) subsequently claimed that the paper showed climate models had overestimated temperatures by \'91at least\'92 0.3\'b0C. It quoted Allen calling this \'93a big deal,\'94 although the context of that quote was conveniently omitted. In a subsequent fact check at Carbon Brief, Zeke Hausfather detailed\'a0the many misunderstandings that led to this false conclusion. As fellow study co-author Piers Forster told
\i \cf2 Carbon Brief
\i0 \cf2 : \'93I think some press reporting is misleading, as our paper did not assess climate impacts or climate model performance. Rather, our paper confirms the need for much increased urgent action from around the world, if society stands a chance of limiting warming to 1.5C.\'94
\i \cf2 \
\i0 \cf2 Myles Allen and study lead author Richard Millar took to
\i \cf2 The Guardian
\i0 \cf2 \'a0to criticize the conservative media outlets that had misrepresented their research. I spoke to Allen, who clarified that he was trying to explain that temperatures didn\'92t seem to be responding to carbon emissions\'a0as fast as the models used in the last IPCC report anticipated. Except the reasons for that have already been identified - the actual global energy imbalance hasn\'92t been as large as in the scenarios input into the climate models, and we have to\'a0compare apples-to-apples temperatures. As Allen and Millar wrote in the
\i \cf2 Guardian
\i0 \cf2 : \'93the IPCC specifically assessed that temperatures in the 2020s would be 0.9-1.3[\'b0]C warmer than pre-industrial, the lower end of which is already looking conservative. Anyone who had troubled to read our paper would have found this \'93IPCC AR5 Ch11 projection\'94 helpfully labelled on 2 of our figures, and clearly consistent with our new results.\'94
\i \cf2 \
\i0 \cf2 It appears that Ben Webster didn\'92t understand Allen\'92s explanation, and Allen was perhaps a bit careless with some of his words. As a result, Webster quoted Allen saying the models were running too hot. Conservative \'91journalists\'92 and opinion writers saw that seemingly juicy quote and, without speaking to Allen or any other climate scientists, ran with it, completely distorting the actual findings of the paper in the process.\
It\'92s been clear for years that conservative media outlets thrive on any comments from climate scientists that can be construed as supporting climate denial myths (model reliability being\'a0among the most popular myths). It\'92s unfortunate that climate scientists have to be so careful about what they say, but that\'92s the reality we live in. Biased conservative media outlets aren\'92t interested in accurately reporting scientific findings; they\'92re interested in advancing the climate denial agenda of manufacturing doubt, in order to erode public support for climate policies. And so the grossly misleading \'91alarmist scientists admit they were wrong\'92 story was echoed by Breitbart, the
\i \cf2 Daily Mai
\i0 \cf2 l, the
\i \cf2 Sun
\i0 \cf2 , the
\i \cf2 Herald Sun
\i0 \cf2 ,\'a0Fox News, the
\i \cf2 Daily Caller
\i0 \cf2 , and many more.\
\pard\pardeftab720\ri-8\pardirnatural\qc\partightenfactor0
\i \cf2 We\'92re Running Out of Time to Curtail Climate Damages\
\pard\pardeftab720\fi354\ri-8\pardirnatural\partightenfactor0
\i0 \cf2 The primary conclusion of the study was that, if the international community acts extremely aggressively to cut carbon pollution, it might still be possible to meet the Paris 1.5\'b0C target. That conclusion may or may not be true, but if we listen to the conservative media and continue on our current path, there\'92s no chance we\'92ll stay below 1.5 or 2\'b0C. Even with the current international climate pledges, we\'92re on a path toward 3\'b0C or more global warming.\'a0\
While it\'92s nice to know if the most hopeful targets are still a geophysical possibility, we need much more aggressive climate policies if they\'92re to become a practical and political possibility. And biased media outlets will always happily distort the science in order to obstruct those policies.\
\pard\pardeftab720\ri-8\pardirnatural\qc\partightenfactor0
\cf2 www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/sep/27/right-wing-media-could-not-be-more-wrong-about-the-15c-carbon-budget-paper}